Joan Smith on Woman's Hour today (Tuesday 12/10)

[WinterTrees]

Interesting discussion about misogyny as a hate crime, but especially notable that afterwards, Emma Barnett asks Joan Smith directly about her removal from Sadiq Khan's office.

JS a little vague at first, but EB really encourages her to drill down into whether she thinks her views were the reason behind her removal. She (EB) has also just said that she's going to try to get Sadiq Khan on the programme to discuss it.

Having been really disappointed in Woman's Hour since the new format and presenters, I am getting more and more encouraged that they are finally fulfilling their remit to represent women. About time (and possibly a too late to be really useful) but welcome nonetheless.

Story cross posted. But agree that Emma and production team seem to have woken up at last and covering the issues much better these days. Never have read out any of my emails though!

Glad to hear they are covering more challenging stuff than the nonsense recently.

Sorry catzwhiskas! I was listening and wondering if there was a thread - I think it's useful to keep a record of these media discussions when they happen, so we can see how the landscape is changing over time.

I've grumbled a lot in the past about the things WH give airtime to and what they sideline (notably Sarah Beeny's bathwater over Maya Forstater's court case!) so it's interesting to see this shift happening. I don't think this conversation would have been hosted in this format a year ago. It seems that they are gaining confidence to talk about women's rights without having to do that ridiculous 'balance' thing and surrounding simple statements with qualifiers and caveats. It feels like there has been a shift behind the scenes and the grown-ups are finally getting firm with the interns.

I'm wondering whether they read Helen Joyce's book and the penny finally dropped. Or perhaps now it seems that the BBC has pried itself clear of Stonewall, years of pent-up female frustration are pouring out. I would love to heard Jane Garvey's take on it, not least so that we finally know whether Jane is actually a full-on feminist or just someone who identified as a feminist for the purposes of Woman's Hour.

I was so disappointed with Emma Barnett to start with that I gave up on WH altogether, but it sounds as if now she's able to be herself she's really come into her own.

Thanks for raising this; I did have hopeful faith in Emma due to her ability to cut through the crap on other matters prior to WH. A few things here and there indicated there is no way she could be anything other than clear on what a woman is.

In retrospect I believe the extension of the prog to an hour (have spent 30 yrs muttering that that was silly; but I cba with the plays) has allowed her more current affairs interview time. She's good at this.

She's being dutifully impartial but getting people on who either know what they're talking about and raise pertinent points or people who are quite frankly bonkers and allowing them all to do the leg work.

It's allowing the debate we've not been allowed for so long and what mps keep banging on about but never actually have.

I miss JG and JM desperately but I'm (now) beginning to have faith in this new direction. (I'm struggling with Anita somewhat.)

Joan was very measured in her comments. But she did allude to the issue of men in women's toilets being a possible reason she was sidelined , among others. Emma Barnett picked up on this very smartly too. A good interview.

The Maya Forstater stuff was rubbish.

But I think they're listening.

I've been impressed with how quickly they're acting recently.

Yes, the dynamic was very much that Joan Smith was being guarded with her words (conditioned, like most women with a public platform, to be ultra-cautious about stating the view that men should be excluded from women's spaces) but Emma Barnett encouraged her to say it.

It's amazing just how much that encouragement changes the tone of the conversation, especially for listeners who perhaps aren't aware of all the ins and outs and the 'no debate' backstory. If guests who mention women's spaces, or trans people, or men who identify as women, are instantly interrupted by a presenter who is clearly alarmed, uncomfortable and seeking to minimise, it tells the listener that these are views that mustn't be aired. They're not 'nice' or appropriate.

EB actually giving JS a space to set out the 'problematic' views that contributed to her dismissal changes the basis of the discussion from defensive to one where the issue can be properly scrutinised. The Emperor's outfit can be critiqued.

I suspect this apparent shift is to do with stated position of Tim Davie, archive.fo/OGYhI, and his worry that the shift into partiality will have caused problems for the BBC in their current negotiations with the government on the future cost of the TV licence.

I think their wishy washy stance was down to Garvey. She has teenage children and from things she's said on fortunately, she and Fi Glover very much in the 'be kind' camp.

I'm not sure that Jane Garvey is on the woke side but her children definitely are, from what she's said on Fortunately. I didn't like WH for the first few weeks with Emma Barnett but she's really come into her own lately. She's certainly a lot tougher than Jane and Jenni were and rightly so.

Agreed about Garvey. I think she likes to see herself as the 'everyone's best mate' progressive middle aged woman, somewhere between Caitlin Moran's whackiness and Lorraine Kelly's national treasure status.

I imagine she's trying to carve out a comfortable media niche being a sort of gossipy neighbour figure, who will talk about anything from celebrity crushes to HRT to hangover cures and her husband's vasectomy, and any suspicion of t**fery will burn that ambition at the stake before she and Fi Glover have got halfway through the Fortunately UK live tour.

That's interesting nauticant. I didn't know about that

I realise, reading back, that the above sounds quite harsh. I do feel let down by JG and resentful of the time WH wasted - really crucial years as this issue was developing and women were being shafted from all sides - when they should have been braver. But I do understand that there are a lot of women who feel unable to voice their opinions for a variety of personal reasons.

@WinterTrees

I realise, reading back, that the above sounds quite harsh. I do feel let down by JG and resentful of the time WH wasted - really crucial years as this issue was developing and women were being shafted from all sides - when they should have been braver. But I do understand that there are a lot of women who feel unable to voice their opinions for a variety of personal reasons.

Absolutely. Jenni Murray was hounded out because of it and Garvey was a terrible disappointment. WH let crucial years pass without a word on this subject and when they did approach left listeners no more informed, and much more confused, than when they started.

I stopped listening to Fortunately a long time ago. Both Garvey and Glover are far less interesting than any woman I know and their middle-class smalltalk was deadly. Plus all they ever seemed to do was puff fellow BBC people.

Women deserved much better from all involved. Yes, Nauticant, I was wondering whether it was the result of Tim Davie realising that the BBC's totally pro-trans, headfirst dive into BLM was driving people away.

I write as a someone who has had Radio 4 as the background to my life since childhood. Thought I could never live without it. Now, as I get into the car and turn on the radio and get yet another woke programme (my bingo moment was this one www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00100cr
in which a young mixed heritage guy talks to a posh anglophone gay male Iraqi author about his "exquisite portrayal" of a MTF trans character caught up among Syrian refugees on Lesbos) I go straight to Radio 3.

I don't want to go back to an all-white, achingly middle class Radio 4, but it really has become a woke parody of its former self.

I have discovered Times radio, after being a lifelong R4 listener (I remember it being the Home service!)

Yes, defund the b**y BBC, unless they talk with honesty about the Gender Ideology issue. I don't trust them any more, about ANYTHING. If they can lie about something this huge, they have lost my trust.

I think Garvey did her big work on the pay claim stuff and has to be lauded for that. She really laid out her position strongly and possibly her future job prospects.
When she and Glover talked about the trans issue they both said how impossible it was to get interviewees to be in the same place. A bit wispy washy I agree but from their asides on Fortunately, it’s clear they both had to fight to make and keep their careers

I thought it was a really good discussion. Emma allowed & encouraged both women to explain their position on misogyny as a hate crime. Interesting that Joan was against. I agree with her take I think, though I really hated the way the Scottish government made insulting a cross dressing man a hate crime, but not sexist abuse of a woman wearing the same clothes!

When JS mentioned the issue of the definition of woman and how that's important if you are going to have hatred of women as a hate crime category, Jane garvey would have tried to move on quick, or even say 'of course many people really disagree with that and think it's transohibic', but Emma just let her make the point cos she had every right to make it.

When I think back to listening in 2018 when the gra consultation was on, and how cagey and uncomfortable the presenters were about the issue, and how odd the whole thing was, this was so different. It was like WH were saying 'of course we discuss this, why wouldn't we discuss this?' Changes are afoot.

It was very good. Joan spelling out that misogyny is sex based and she isn't in favour of making it a specific hate crime, since it will immediately be appropriated by TRAs and used against women.

Emma Barnett is very good and asks the tough questions.

I've just listened to this on Sounds and came on here to see if there was a thread, thanks OP! I was really struck by the calm and measured tone, in which there was no panic or trying to change the subject when the definition of woman vs transwoman was raised, it was just treated as a serious and relevant point like any other. I found that so refreshing. Good for Emma.

EB seems to have had an epiphany since she interviewed the trans woman whose report resulted in the Olympic committee changing the rules for trans people. She is also a Newsnight presenter, and I wonder if she has ties with the producers who did the investigation into the Tavistock.

I'd be happy if Anita Rani bogged off back to annoying sheep on Countryfile. She comes across as completely out of her depth and inappropriate. I still haven't got over her commenting on Paris Lees' looks during that interview - a complete non sequitur in the context of the interview. Would she suddenly pronounce that any natal female guest looked beautiful in an item that had nothing to do with that person's beauty? Of course not. It would be incredibly sexist to do so.

@nauticant I agree, the shift is definitely coming from Tim Davie as the new DG.

I'm an ex BBC journalist, still in touch with staffers there, and apparently the complete nonsense the BBC had been publishing and broadcasting is one of the top reasons for complaints.

They were simply ignoring the BBC's charter responsibilities over impartiality.

It's always worth complaining when they are inaccurate and partial, and don't take the first response as the end of the matter if you're unhappy - escalate it. A record is kept of all complaints.

The fact that the BBC would choose to prioritise indulging in identity politics over impartiality when they might be facing a double existential threat from Internet streaming and government support rapidly disappearing has been astonishing.

Anita Rani and her Fluffy Friday edition of WH can do one.

My experience of making a complaint to the BBC Littlesilverwatch was an initial brush off response and when I escalated, I received a gaslighting response that suggested I didn't understand what was going on in the broadcast I'd heard. The latter response suggested that for a second escalation I'd need new arguments because my thoroughly detailed initial statement and follow up had now been dealt with. The message was very clear: anything else you send will be disregarded.

@nauticant Keep at it, you want to get it to the executive complaints unit where there's more chance of a grown up seeing it, then beyond that it's Ofcom for broadcast complaints.

www.bbc.co.uk/contact/recent-ecu

The editorial teams really, really don't want that to happen though and will try to fob you off.